Re: virus: RE: A most unscientific poll

Lior Golgher (
Tue, 05 Nov 1996 21:27:21 -0800

I've read an article about that theory of correlation between the order
of birth and rebellious nature, and it seemed to me as an ordinary
emphirical claim. It didn't claim that your rebellious nature is
determined by birth and there's nothing you can do about it, it simply
examplified the idea of order of birth as *one of the factors* which may
effect your future rebellious acts. Just to step another foot, my
immidiate impression based mainly on social reasoning was that this
theory IS logical.

I suppose Froid could find about a zillion seperate height syndroms,
which all have some connection to sex, mommy and fat cigars.
I also suppose that if you look hard enough and unethically enough,
you'd find enough proofs for your claim to publish your work at any
decent tabloid.
And yet I can't grok one major part of your claim - its reasoning. What
is the logic behind that correlation between height and atheism? Why the
hell would a short man be more religious than a tall man? Is it because
he's used to raise his look up? Because the world seems more frightening
down there? Because the holy supervision lays somewhere 6 foot above the
ground and tall men can't see it? Or maybe because the blood which is
pumped from the heart up has a longer way to pass onto tall men's minds,
and their conscience can't make the whole way up?
Such claims can be heard on (careful) *certain* religious centers, yet I
doubt whether they're emphirically proveable.
So Hakeeb, can you explain the logic behind your theory? Or is it just
somekind of a memetic drill and I'm about to hide my face in shame...